Others can debate whether the Leveretts deserve the prime real estate on the NYT op-ed page. I'd like to focus on the fact that the op-ed itself makes no f***ing sense whatsoever.

Let's take a look at it, shall we?

[T]he meeting on Thursday in Geneva of the United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany with Iran (the “five plus one” talks) will not be an occasion for strategic discussion but for delivering an ultimatum: Iran will have to agree to pre-emptive limitations on its nuclear program or face what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “crippling” sanctions.

However, based on conversations we’ve had in recent days with senior Iranian officials — including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — we believe it is highly unlikely Iran will accept this ultimatum.

Oh, wow... senior Iranian officials told the Leveretts that they would not concede? Well, I'd definitely take that at face value. I'm sure these were the same people who told the Leveretts that Ahmadinejad was the legitimate victor back in June. Clearly, these are reliable sources with zero incentive to dissemble to regime-friendly pundits in the United States. And it's not like they have anything to hide. Oh, wait....

American officials tend to play down Iranian concerns about American intentions, citing public messages from President Obama to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, as proof of the administration’s diplomatic seriousness. But Tehran saw these messages as attempts to circumvent Iran’s president — another iteration, in a pattern dating from Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal, of American administrations trying to create channels to Iranian “moderates” rather than dealing with the Islamic Republic as a system.

Wow again. See, I would view these exchanges with Khamenei as attempts to talk to the person with actual control over Iran's nuclear program, as opposed to the guy who rants on and on about how the Holocaust was just a big myth.

Indeed, the Obama administration is "dealing with the Islamic Republic as a system" -- and they are trying to talk to the people with genuine foreign policy power. The Leveretts, on the other hand, seem to be convinced that the only way to talk with Iran is through Ahmadinejad.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration was enticed by the prospect of regime-toppling instability in the aftermath of Iran’s presidential election this summer. But compared to past upheavals in the Islamic Republic’s 30-year history — the forced exile of a president, the assassination of another, the eight-year war with Iraq and the precipitous replacement of Ayatollah Khomeini’s first designated successor, Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri, with Ayatollah Khamenei — the controversy over this year’s election was hardly a cataclysmic event.

Seriously, how did this paragraph get past the op-ed editors? First of all, beyond a rhetorical flourish or two and asking Twitter to hold off on their scheduled maintenance, what exactly did the Obama administration do to foment regime-toppling instability? Second, if the largest street demonstrations since the 1979 revolution don't qualify as a big event, what would convince the Leveretts of the import of the June election? More YouTube videos? Hand puppets?

Instead of pushing the falsehood that sanctions will give America leverage in Iranian decision-making — a strategy that will end either in frustration or war — the administration should seek a strategic realignment with Iran as thoroughgoing as that effected by Nixon with China. This would require Washington to take steps, up front, to assure Tehran that rapprochement would serve Iran’s strategic needs.

On that basis, America and Iran would forge a comprehensive framework for security as well as economic cooperation — something that Washington has never allowed the five-plus-one group to propose. Within that framework, the international community would work with Iran to develop its civil nuclear program, including fuel cycle activities on Iranian soil, in a transparent manner rather than demanding that Tehran prove a negative — that it’s not developing weapons. A cooperative approach would not demonize Iran for political relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah, but would elicit Tehran’s commitment to work toward peaceful resolutions of regional conflicts.

This seems as propitious a moment as any to cave to popular demand that I articulate some thoughts on the sanctions question with regard to Iran. I would expect some somewhat more utility in the sanctions process than the Leveretts. If the U.S. can foster cooperation among the P5 + 1, and the Iranians see the extent of this cooperation, then I think they'd be willing to deal. That's not an easy proposition to pull off, and would require both diplomatic skill and will. That does not mean it should't be tried, however. Even the effort to build momentum in the Security Council might prompt serious bargaining from the Iranians.

I would also like to know how the Iranian opposition feels about sanctions. If they reject them as a policy tool, well, that's a good argument against their imposition. On the other hand, if this is a replay of South Africa, then that's something else to consider.

One final point -- the analogy with Nixon's opening to China makes zero sense in the current context. Nixon was trying to outflank the Soviet Union during the Cold War by cozying up to their most powerful bordering state. What the Leveretts seem to be proposing is a multilateral move to bring Iran in from the cold -- which benefits Russia and China far more than it benefits the United States. In other words, I'm not sure how a Nixon strategy works in the P5 + 1 framework.

I suppose that the Obama administration could attempt secret shuttle diplomacy with Iran to outflank Moscow and Beijing. Such a gambit would infuriate our European allies and push Israel into panicking, however -- and I'm not sure that's worth whatever strategic gains would be had by a rapprochement with the regime in Tehran.

So, to review, I give the Leverett op-ed an "I" -- for being inchoate, inconsistent, and idiotic.

"Payambar-e Azam 4 (The Great Prophet IV) missile wargames conducted by the IRGC are in line with exercising the Iranian Armed Forces' defensive and deterrent goals."

"During the multiple-phased exercises, we will strike specified virtual targets with several missiles simultaneously and will exercise continuous, but non-simultaneous, launch of missiles in a bid to exercise and manage our long-term deterrent defense capability."

"Boosting missile targeting precision, optimizing missile and rocket warheads as well as increasing speed in missile launch preparation steps by using modern navigation techniques are among the features of the exercise."

Not so long ago, Revo Guards rocket rich reactionaries promised to turn neighboring states into pure hell - literally.

That is sooo last year!

Revo Guard General Salami pretty much about faced from previous Payambar e Azams when he alledgedly took pains to let neighboring states know that mobile missile systems pose no threat to neighboring states :

"The message of the drills for some expansionist countries is that we are able to promptly stage a proper response to their animosities through crushing and powerful reactions."

Payamber -e Azam 4 focused on surface to surface rocketry with ranges that can hit every crib the wild wacked 'expansionist countries' like Great and Little Satan have in the ME.

Unverified intell signals this most likely means Iran may be planning for a Pearl Harbor, Yom Kippor style surprise attack strat on Little Satan's Dimona facility as a prelude to redrawing the map.

Monday, September 28, 2009

News that Little Satan may have or may not have game(for the tragically unhip 'game' is defined as a "...skill or ability, a measure of smoothness ...") to do the deal in regards to Persia's magical secret stash of nucleonic naughtiness has recently been swinging like a pendulum about to fly off the hinge.Zbignew Brzezinski is disingenious in his Iview with hot! Gerald Posner, giving the impression that Little Satan's combat bona fides are restricted to violating Iraqi airspace enroute to smacking Persia's enriched booty.Really? Au contraire mon doctaire!Professor Cordesman at CSIS points out that it's not the ability to strike or even the timing - but "the how" to proceed with a strike against Iran. Several hot bits of intell to consider:Little Satan's revamped combat jets (New! Now with extended range!) and her mystery stash of the slim shady Jericho III ballistic missiles.A wicked combination of both elements along with surprise commando ops may later be known as Little Satan's Lucky Strike.Pic "Lucky Strike"

"The United States remains the world's indispensable nation -- indispensable to international peace, security, and stability, and indispensable to safe-guarding and advancing the ideals and principles we hold dear."

It looks like Ahmadinejad may be cleverly manipulating the system. While in New York for the UN General Assembly, the Iranian president said he’d be willing to allow Iranian nuclear experts to talk with American scientists to help resolve Washington’s concerns, and it seems these cheery developments—along with revelations that Tehran has built a secret enrichment facility—make it almost certain that the White House will engage Iran on October 1.

There’s just one problem, however: this is absolutely the wrong time to initiate a dialogue with the regime in Tehran. Talking to the mullahs would indicate a failure on the part of the Obama administration to adjust to prevailing conditions; it would send the wrong message to the people of Iran; and it would further poison our relations with the Muslim world.

The United States has had no meaningful relationship with Iran in roughly thirty years. During this time, there have been plenty of situations where better relations with Tehran could have helped—9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Middle East peace process, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict to name a few—but we chose not to engage Iran because of our distrust of the regime and our unwillingness to afford the mullahs legitimacy. Now, after the regime has shown its worst side in thirty years—with rigged elections, a total disregard for human rights and the brutal treatment of its citizens—we decide that we must engage Iran urgently! Yes, candidate Obama took the position that he would negotiate with Iran if elected, but conditions have changed dramatically since November 2008 and he should adjust his policies to these developments.

What talking to the mullahs tells the world, and especially those in the Muslim world who see the United States allied with all manner of dictators in Muslim countries, is that Washington feels more comfortable dealing with vulnerable dictators than with legitimate regimes that have the support of their people. Today’s Iranian government is at its weakest in thirty years. It lacks legitimacy. The opposition is hopeful, it is continuing with anti-regime demonstrations and it has not been frightened into submission. Iran’s economy is in a total mess. Dialogue with the United States will give Ahmadinejad and Khamenei legitimacy. Engagement will strengthen the mullahs at the expense of the Iranian people. Is this what President Obama wants?

There is no real urgency for a dialogue. Engagement could wait for at least another six months. The American obsession with Iran’s nuclear program should not be allowed to determine U.S. policy toward Tehran. No matter what happens in talks with the United States or what the mullahs profess, the regime will continue to pursue its enrichment program secretly to the point that it is in a position to develop a bomb in quick order. Friday’s revelation of another “secret” enrichment facility is only the latest case in point. The mullahs will never trust Washington’s intentions as to regime change in Tehran. They view their nuclear program as the best deterrence against an American assault. For the same reason, they are unlikely to forego their support of Hamas and of Hezbollah, and their backing in Afghanistan will be half-hearted and of limited value to the United States, because in reality they want a weakened United States. The same applies in Iraq.

Could there be a dark side to this engagement initiative scheduled to begin on October 1? Perhaps Washington has already held discussions with the regime in Tehran. Maybe they have already come to an agreement: the mullahs will let all those arrested in the recent crackdown go free, Washington will claim that dialogue has resulted in the freeing of innocent citizens and in the advancement of human rights and the mullahs will “magnanimously” state that they are confident the United States is not a party to any sort of velvet revolution.

Sadly, the October 1 meeting will simply eradicate any hope of the current regime falling anytime soon at the hands of the Iranian people. This is not the time to lend a helping hand to the mullahs to gain international legitimacy; instead it’s time to support the aspirations of the Iranian people. Submitted by Professor Hossein G. AskariArt "Engage!"

Yet could the nuance, subtlety and huge blocks of sincere insincerity get cliff noted into, like maybe 5 words or less?

Easy!

Undermine allies and encourage enemies?

44's text at UN

"...sends the implicit message to allies (like Israel, India, Columbia, the Maliki government, eastern Europe, Sarkozy, Merkel, etc) that there must have been something wrong with them to have allied themselves with the U.S. during the Bush years — and to enemies and belligerents that their anti-Americanism is perhaps understandable given a shared antipathy for America."

Systematically attempting to diminish Great Satan and xforming her from once being "the world's only superpower" to a nation subordinated to the demands of international consensus, organizations, "peer competitors" and even rogue states.

"Sowing long-term problems ahead for the United States.

"There are lots of areas — Iran and its environs, the free former Soviet Republics, Taiwan, the 38th Parallel, Venezuela/Colombia, the borders of Israel, Cyprus, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, etc. — where tensions are scarcely restrained, and major aggressive players could easily try to change the existing order, if any thought the United States either did not care to intervene, could not intevene, or supported their efforts.

"Feel-good magic comes at the expense of long-term American interests — and making some unsavory characters like our president now, will mean only trouble ahead for the country itself and its friends abroad."

Thursday, September 24, 2009

One of Great Satan's fav concepts in war making is shaping tactical and strategic environs.Close analysis of recent events may indicate that Pentagon is shaping the environ about AFPAK in a lo down ho down with 44.Consider: After 27 March -- when 44 announced a new strategy to be known as AFPAK (which honestly seemed more PAKAF than AFPAK) Def Sec Gates dutifully hit the scene in Afghanistan and rather unceremoniously sacked General McKiernan and replaced him with General McChrystal. General McK was a panzer commander of long standing - yet like all Great Satan's Generals - could handle other stuff equally well. General McC is a Green Beret, a real live snake eating, throat slitting, super especial ops ninja that has mastered asymmetrical warfare as an art form. Sweet indeed is the happy fact that General McC was large and in charge and in the flesh in Iraq to ensure that the last thing al Zarqawi ever saw (before trekking off to the perfumed Gardens of Paradise) was the embodiment of Great Satan - an American GI sticking an M 16 in his face, enjoying -- savouring -- al Zarqawi's last breath in a hopefully agonizing death.Placed in command of developing and implementing a winning Surge in Afghanistan, General McC faithfully did the gig. With a needed influx of a rowdy Teuffel Hunden posse, the New Surging General took the fight to the poppy rich fields of Helmand killing killers, dope dealers and their cadre of heroinistic enablers. As the environs were shaping up - Ex General Jones at NSA reminded several Pentagon cats that asking for more of the most proficient, volunteer, humanitarian, all weather killers of killers in history could spark a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Moment for 44 and his intellectual posse of academics and theorists.Since McChrystal's assessment of what all it would take to make Taliban and al Qaeda scream "GOD! PLEASE! STOP!" has been released to 44 for three weeks at least - nothing much was heard from Commander In Chief. So as Americans --the pride of our nation, semi surges -- in dark, scary places in the world where a girls school could get a girl a face full of acid -- 44's inactivity (sans stuff like health something reform, Little Satan's apartment boom in West Bank, energy policies - you know -- all the stuff that really wouldn't matter if a T type attack struck Great Satan) must be maddening.Since her founding -- Great Satan has always enjoyed civilian control of the military. Even the mere thought of a coup, junta or putsch is unthinkable -- shocking even.Hold up - it gets better.In Foreign Policy Land there is a coercive concept called 'carrots and sticks' -- essentially if nation state actors act in a cool way -- carrots are presented to reinforce and continue desired behaviour. If nation state actors act out in an uncool way - break out the sticks for a thrashing. Just as 44 heads off to the World's Capital City to save the world, hang out with the Not Hot League of Autocrazies and the Despots 'R' Us designer cats, General McChrystal's assessment magically shows up in the WaPo.Playing catch up with 44's Late Night unconvincing horse and cart analogy, Pentagon countered and let slip that General McC may just say "... 44 ain't serious - so I'm splitting."Whoa! This kinda sorta coup to force 44's hand has so far only shown the sticks.Classified bits of General McC's assessment may include a tempting carrot or two for 44.Capturing OBL: Hey, General McChrystal is an especial ops cat after all -- in Iraq he led the hunter killer teams that tracked down intolerant jerks, creeps and killers and assured them quick and easy access to death, destruction and misery. A temptation for 44 to be the cat who captured or took out AQ's Super villans like OBL and al Zawahiri or Taliban's Mullah Omar would be powerful meds for a president who has accomplished little at home or abroad. And the home front may be a total bust anyway. A high Prestige Victory like this could be a game changer in any presidential endeavor. A worthy tease, it would also have the happy benefit of satiating all but the most rabid anti war -- any war collective.Securing Land of the Pure's nuclear arsenal: If Taliban and al Qaeda allies made a desperate Surge of their own - it could conceivably carry them right on through the hallowed gates of Wah Cantonment where the majority of Pakistan's nukes are held. Determination to win in AFPAK may just be Pakistan's best bet to survive (albeit as a failing fakebelieve nation state).Diplomatic Power:Bulking up Great Satan's cadre of the most experienced war fighters in world history in AFPAKland would be a powerful diplo-politi-tary card to wield in any jawflapping sexercise (profitable or nonprofit) with Iran.Encirclement by Great Satan may not be the rant of the day from Mullahopolis --yet they can certainly read a map. Powerful units in Iraq, Afghanistan, forward contingents in theatre are formidable reminders that Iran could suddenly become the unluckiest nation state on the planet.

44's FoPo thus far has been rather underwhelming. Going all the way with AFPAK could be a tough caveat for signal readers in Tehran. It could also be negotiated away like the Eastern Europa Missile Shield."Managing expectations over Afghanistan today is the most effective way of salvaging America’s reputation (not to mention the President’s own re-election) tomorrow. "Irrespective of the future course of action in Afghanistan, the White House should not wait much longer before coming up with an “inoculation strategy” (as they say in comspeak) that will pre-empt future foreign attempts to equate an American withdrawal with a U.S. retreat or a U.S. defeat."Total Control of The Heroin Trade:Instead of trashing and destroying vile poppies -- instead secure the fields along with refinement and distribution centers. As a strategic resource, heroin trafficking -- to a certain -- green mindset -- could seem way less destructive than oil or natural gas reserves.

Using just the threat of heroin as a strategic resource like OPEC and oil -- or Commonwealth and energy could be a super soft power tool in the old tool box as well as yet another concession to bargain away in any engagements with Iran, Pakistan, Commonwealth -- even China.

Pentagon's exceptional coup -- so far only showcasing sticks -- comes from exceptional cats who believe nothing is ever truly random. Taking their day gigs deadly seriously and shaping the environs for this confrontation may very well indicate they have provided 44 with a way out and a way for Great Satan to act out. Not so much tilt as somersault the tide of war against fans, friends and enablers of al Qaeda and Taliban right in their own front yard - the very territory on which al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

More than a motto -- it's also the raison d'etre for Great Satan's Special Forces -- the Green Berets -- being inscribed on their patches and unit crests.

From the exploits of WWII OSS/ Jedburgh/Sussex Teams operating behind the lines in France. Colonel Aaron Bank, papa of Army's Special Forces, and his teams enabled the French Resistance to grow and oppose German Wehrmacht.

The unconventional warfare tactics of Colonel Bank differed from the conventional warfare tactics of the rest of the Army in that they included clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict and that they were subversive to the Nazi forces in power.

Often called snake eaters in the new millennium, these cats are truly elite and honestly don't seem to mind showing up at unexpected hours -- kidnapping or killing every enemy in the A.O. and splitting way before flies start walking on the eyeballs of their prey.

"In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion "premature." Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "time is not on our side"; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public "to take a deep breath."

"Within days of taking office, it gave Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, 60 days to craft an Afghanistan strategy. He outlined a policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which officials now refer to as "AfPak," and called for the United States to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaida."Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs. They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with."This is significant. As 44 is currently reeling from the feeling of being told no - often loudly, rudely and shrewdly by allies and opposition on both fronts -- foreign and domestic -- taking the reins for AFPAK and staying the course he himself championed not so long ago, may be his only chance for victory for something. Health care overhaul, financial regulatory revisions, energy policies and halting wicked Little Satan's apartment building boom in West Bank may be dead ends.And not to put too fine a point on it - a possible future face of GOP (who knows better than most what the heck she is talking about) offered a gentle reminder that AFPAK is deadly serious:"The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan, that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. "So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.

True -- it ain't cool to kiss and tell (alas, that is a whole 'nother essay at a whole 'nother site)The leaked document contained here contains precious little of what all we didn't already know little that we didn't already know from earlier leaks, op-eds, and background briefings --yet she was leaked for a reason.

1. A case could be made that the Obama team tempted fate by authorizing Bob Woodward to travel with General Jones in the first place and then sitting on this report for nearly a month without a White House response. You cannot swing a dead cat in Washington without meeting someone who was briefed on at least part of the McChrystal assessment, and virtually every one of those folks is mystified as to why the White House has not responded as of yet. The White House will have to respond now, but leaks like this make it harder to for the Commander-in-Chief to do deliberate national security planning.

2. Without knowing the provenance of the leak, it is impossible to state with confidence what the motives were. For my part, I would guess that this leak is an indication that some on the Obama team are dismayed at the White House’s slow response and fear that this is an indication that President Obama is leaning towards rejecting the inevitable requests for additional U.S. forces that this report tees up.By this logic, the leak is designed to force his hand and perhaps even to tie his hands.

3. The leak makes it harder for President Obama to reject a McChrystal request for additional troops because the assessment so clearly argues for them. The formal request is in a separate document, apparently, but it is foreshadowed on every page of the Initial Assessment. Presumably, the McChrystal assessment and request is shared by Petraeus and, I am told, also by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That does not make it irrefutably correct, but it does make this issue now the defining moment in civil-military relations under President Obama’s watch. Obama has the authority and the responsibility to make a decision that runs counter to what his military leaders are requesting, but it is a very difficult thing for him to do.

4. The toughest part in the report from the point of view of the Obama White House is the twin claim that (i) under-resourcing the war could cause the war to be lost, and (ii) the resources need to show up in the next year. The former puts the responsibility for success/failure squarely on the desk of the President and the latter, because of the long lead times needed to send additional resources into the theater, says that failure could result from choices made or not made in the next few weeks. And it said that a few weeks ago.

5. Paradoxically, however, the report does not make it impossible for President Obama to reject the likely military request for additional forces. Because the report is so candid about all of the challenges we face in Afghanistan, many of the arguments against additional forces are substantiated somewhere in the report: the myriad failures of the Afghan government, the self-defeating restrictions imposed on NATO forces, etc. The only anti-surge argument that I have not seen substantiated is the extraordinarily seductive one that suggests we can afford to simply walk away from Afghanistan and conduct “off-shore-counter-terrorism-operations” indefinitely.

6. This document will remind anyone who worked on the issue of the internal debate over the surge strategy in Iraq circa Fall 2006. While the Bush administration Iraq Strategy Review did not produce a 66-page report that leaked, we covered much this same terrain and wrestled with many of the same thorny trade-offs and uncertain bets. The report is basically calling for an Iraq-type surge gambit, asking President Obama to do more or less what President Bush did in 2007: (i) change the strategy, (ii) adequately resource the new strategy, and (iii) overcome the strong domestic political opposition to doing (i) and (ii). If successful, the McChrystal assessment claims that this will buy time to allow for a safer eventual shift back to a train and transition strategy. It will not win the war in the short-run, but it will shift the trajectory of the war and allow for the possibility that our side can prevail in the long run. This is eerily similar to how the pro-surge group within the Bush team thought of the Iraq surge.

The domestic political-military stakes have been ramped up considerably with this leak. It is not quite a 3-AM-phone-call crisis, but it is probably the most serious national security test the Obama team has confronted thus far. I trust they will address it with the same care and candor that characterizes the McChrystal assessment itself. We will know very soon if that is the case.

Here is the crucial bit:

... But Obama's deliberative pace -- he has held only one meeting of his top national security advisers to discuss McChrystal's report so far -- is a source of growing consternation within the military. "Either accept the assessment or correct it, or let's have a discussion," one Pentagon official said. "Will you read it and tell us what you think?" Within the military, this official said, "there is a frustration. A significant frustration. A serious frustration."

Monday, September 21, 2009

Yay! Just when IAEA seems about as robust as a viagra free swim meet, the famous Impotent Atomic Energy Ass is determined to make their record 0 - 4.

After failing the internat'l community with India, Pakistan and Iran those wiley coyotes inspectors appear determined to crash the credibility of the IAEA to have one more country over which it is powerless to enforce its rulings.Little Satan."The UN nuclear assembly voted on Friday to urge Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under UN inspections, in a surprise victory for Arab states.

"The resolution, passed narrowly for the first time in nearly two decades, expresses concern about "Israeli nuclear capabilities" and calls on International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei to work on the issue.

"The Middle East resolution, sponsored by Arab states, was backed by 49 votes to 45 against in a floor vote at the IAEA's annual member states conference. The vote split along Western and developing nation lines. There were 16 abstentions"

Little Satan's rep on the council has already promised to "not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region." Gonna be a wild week in NYC for Little Satan too as she hangs with 44 and Abu Mazen in yet another attempt to arouse things out of yet another Palestinian Sympathy Fatigue stupor.Pic "Sittle Fatan Yays 'Luck Sou'"

Sunday, September 20, 2009

For those lucky (or unlucky) as the case may be -- to get a chance to participate in something known as '"...higher learning..." (which is not a joke) - though there are certain professors who candidly admit to 'token (or toking?) up' on those magical merry treks to class, the drill for Great Satan fans is prett much the same:

Keep your head down in American and World History (often though - they appear the same - World history always has a globe in it), pick your battles and judiciously judicate when to confide, confront or grin and bow to absurdity.

At a recent scholastic orgasm of how Great Satan dang near ruined everything by confronting illegit, truly ungodly regimes by sticking an M 16 in their face -- the idea was floated that the killing - accidental or by hideous design - of a certain religious element in the ME has prob sparked an unrelenting combat mentality against Great Satan that '...could last a thousand years..."Terms like 'colonialism,' 'imperialism' and 'democrazy imposition' were finally taken down a notch though."Umm -- if that is true -- the Iran Iraq war killed way more of those folks than America has -- yet Iran seems to be gaining ground in sunni turf and certain Arab regimes are reaching out to Persia." Or "LOLZ! Nasser's Egypt dropped mustard gas WMD on Yemanisin the love fest 1960's -- turning tons of innocent mohammedists into living shrieking blisters for the rest of their mercifully short, yet agony filled lives - so how could Pyramid last so long after such a casusbelli for annihilating her?" Take it from yours truly -- it is infuriating to be dissed and dismissed in flagrente' delicto by academic avatars from the "Cult of Irrelevance"Thankfully - there are a few cool schools. And Institue of World Politics may be the coolest.Instead of focusing or pining away for the ancient faux school wicked ways of realism, realpolitik, containment, engagement, retreat, defeat and advocacy of cutting even more deals with known oathbreakersIWPactually gets it!In the New Millennium -- changing regimes or actually changing the nature of regimes (same thing -- nicht war?) is the way to go:"The Institute's specific goals are:

"To provide useful education to current and future professionals in the fields of statecraft and national security affairs;

"To provide education that meets official needs of U.S. foreign affairs, defense, intelligence and commercial agencies.

"To emphasize the study of the founding principles of the American political-economic system and their relevance to current statecraft;

"To increase awareness of political realities which may affect U.S. security and world peace.

Relevant elements of comparative political culture, Western moral precepts, practical political economics, and political and diplomatic history.

Oh Snap! Western moral precepts? Code for Straussian "Which one of these things is not like the other" daemoneoconic philosophy.

"Dedicated to developing leaders with a sound understanding of international realities and the ethical conduct of statecraft -- i.e., the use of the various instruments of power in service of national interests and purposes -- based on knowledge and appreciation of the American political economy and the Western moral tradition."

"Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion.

"Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies.

"This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing."

"We have seen in the case of Europe how a social democratic welfare state discourages population growth as well as economic growth, and suppresses the virtues traditionally associated with "manliness" in foreign policy. "Europe is now paying a terrible price, to the point where it is in the process of losing its historic identity, because of the sovereignty it has accorded the social democratic ethos over both domestic and foreign policy. That the two are inseparably intertwined has never been more convincingly demonstrated.

"True, the American version of "national greatness" has recently run into some local difficulties out there in the Middle East, and I suppose that the idea itself will be muted for some time ahead. "But I note that the American population has just reached 300 million, with 400 million pretty firmly projected for 2040. So my grandchildren will be living in a country with the world's third largest population, the strongest economy, and the most powerful military establishment. "Our critics may demand ever-greater humility from our ever-greater power; that would be a historic first were it ever to happen. "So, for better or worse, "national greatness" is being thrust upon us."Pic - "Medal of Freedom Earner"

Sure - everybody knows -- Commonwealth cannot bear to have any NATO stuff any where near her frontiers. Just ask Georgia.

"The Russians apparently think they have a divine right to threaten Europe with nuclear annihilation and anything that interferes with this is “destabilizing.” Actually the missile-defense sites posed no threat to Russia’s vast missile arsenal, and Putin undoubtedly knew this."

Or maybe BiBi was cutting deals for Little Satan's air force to refuel in Commonwealth airspace as a logistical leg up on smacking the living dayights out of some choice tender, sensitive portions of Iran's regime.

Plus - any strike on Iran -- or better yet -- a massive regime killing strike on -- oh, say the top 20% of Iran's ruling clerics and fanboys like Besseji HQ's, crippling the Revo Guard, knocking out Karg Island, annihilating ship killing missile batts near Hormuz, or clawing Persia's 90 or so aircraft they maybe could get airborn on a good day right out of the sky would all result in a spike in oil prices that would sweetly replenish Mockba's coffers. So, what's in it for us?Pic - " Dont EVER give up something for nothing"

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Reading the IR tarot cards or staring into the crystal meth ball for future current events, the issue of a nuked up, gay free, girl fearing Khomeinist Iran is certainly at the top of the list.A recent cyber tete' a tete' with the super savvy avuncular Dr Walid Phares may shed some light on the future by considering the past:

"There have been two faces of Iranian strategy - one from 1979 to 2003, the other from 2003 onward. The latter has been much of the same but since the United States’ invasion of Iraq, Iran feels surrounded by American presence in Iraq on the one side and Afghanistan on the other.

Between 1979 and 2003 these policies and their implications have always been there. Iran always had a policy on Iraq all along.

"It was to bring down Hussein and bring about an Islamic Republic, dominated by Shia doctrine, in southern Iraq.

"From 2003 to 2005 there has simply been an accelerated reaction to Iraq and other events in the region. In support of their use of Hezbollah as a proxy for their geopolitical goals in the region, Iran diverted 300 million in funding for the group between 1982 and 2000.

"Other such examples of their policies and influence in the region are the long-standing strategic alliance with the Syrian regime as well as their support for militants in the Palestinian territories.

"It is in Iran’s interest to promote problems in Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. In dealing with Iran sanctions have a large role but this is only one piece of the process. Sanctions are meant to levy diplomatic leverage. Like sanctions, neither diplomacy nor military force will work alone." A coherent combination of these strategies must be applied. We cannot simply engage Iran for the sake of engaging. It is important to engage Iran at a senior level and then hold these figures accountable.

Stuff to consider -- and be on the look out for include - yet are not limited to:

1) Theological and political radicalization2) Propaganda and psychological warfare3) Violation of individual and collective human rights4) Political and economic dislocations5) Organized criminal activity6) State-sponsored terror7) Maritime threats in the gulf8) Development of weapons of mass destruction9) Employment of these weapons10) Regional destabilization

"The bottom line with responses to Iran: we must look at diplomacy, the battle of ideas, economic sanctions/incentives, U.S. and European and Israeli missile defense, and military options.

Of course - if Mullahopolis develops a designer nuclear umberella of her own it is tough to imagine a regime, whose primary tenet faithfully upheld for decades is Great Satan hating, would be inclined to settle down.

Most likely she will feel like Supreme Chancellor Palpatine in Star Wars III -- "Unlimited Power!"

"But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.

"We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib.Hold up for a sec. Really? If that's true -- then there wouldn't be a single despotry left in the entire ME - all those intolerant, illegit regimes and their secret police, secret prisons, secret trials, secret torture chambers and secret executions would have been overthrown eons ago by rowdy Mohammedists who could not bear the idea of their own tribesmen being tormented by their own leaders in scary places where people are REALLY tormented and REALLY die.

"And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.

So what?

"What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters."

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Here's irony for ya. Perhaps the best book out yonder on Syria is Flynt Leverette's "Inheriting Syria." Fully crunk with tons of reasons to ignore Syria or hound and confound them at every opportunity - Dr Leverette seemed to want to see Great Satan estab a fan club out reach to this pitifully small -- yet larger than life player in the ME.

Dr L's malign influence advocates giving Dr General President for Life Bashar incentives, bling and a chance to show what kind of cat he really is.

"Shortly after taking office, in a dramatic departure from Bush-era policy, President Barack Obama made good on his pledge to reestablish dialogue with Syria. In recent months, in an effort to build confidence and improve the relationship, the administration has dispatched seven delegations to Damascus, including multiple visits from its top Middle East diplomat and peace envoy and senior military officials.

"Much of the discussion has focused on stabilizing Iraq, an area where Syria -- the leading point of entry for al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgents since 2003 -- could potentially make a significant contribution. Washington also sought Syrian assistance in bolstering the embattled government in Baghdad. The administration chose Iraq because it was assumed to be a topic of "mutual interest," a belief seemingly confirmed in June 2009 by Syrian Ambassador to Washington Imad Mustafa, who described Iraq as "a very strong opportunity to cooperate with this administration."

"Three months later, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that Damascus is falling short. Not only are jihadis continuing to flow into Iraq via Syria, but the Assad regime appears to be actively working to undermine the stability of the Iraqi government. The recent carnage in Baghdad tells the story.

"On August 25, Iraq withdrew its ambassador to Syria to protest the suicide bombings that killed nearly 100 Iraqis a week earlier. In his videotaped confession, the mastermind of the attacks admitted he planned them on orders from a man in Syria. Adding insult to injury, the attacks emanating from Syria came just one day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in Damascus for talks with President Bashar al-Assad about border security.

"Despite Syrian protestations to the contrary, the bombings were not an aberration. In mid-July -- a month after the initial US-Syrian military talks about border security -- several armed fighters with Syrian passports were arrested in Mosul, another Iraqi city beset by suicide attacks. At about the same time, Assad himself hosted anti-American Iraqi Shi'ite militia leader Muqtada Sadr, whose Mahdi Army has proven a significant impediment to efforts to stabilize Iraq.

"Regardless of whether the latest attacks were perpetrated by al-Qaeda or Baathist insurgents, Damascus bears responsibility. For the past six years, the Assad regime has provided al-Qaeda carte blanche to attack neighboring states via its territory. The relationship between this terrorist organization and this terror-sponsoring state remains complicated. Likewise, even now Damascus continues to oppose extradition of Iraqi Baathists who are working to destabilize the government in Baghdad.

"After half a year of its good-faith effort to forge a partnership with Damascus based on "mutual respect and mutual interest", the Obama administration has hit a wall. While Syrian officials routinely articulate a desire for improved relations with Washington, the Assad regime has yet to take steps necessary to make this possible. From Iraq to Lebanon to its ongoing support for Hamas, and despite Washington's conciliatory steps, Damascus remains intransigent.

"Concerned that Iraqi-Syrian tensions could undermine efforts to rehabilitate Syria, Washington has yet to condemn Damascus for its role in the Baghdad bombings, preferring instead to describe the events as an "internal matter" between the governments. Based on the priority Washington ascribes to Iraq, however, a stronger US response is warranted.

"To date, the administration has been rather generous in response to Syria's promises to improve its behavior. Based on Syria's pledge to cooperate with CENTCOM on border security issues, for example, this past June the Obama administration undertook to return an ambassador to Damascus, a seat vacant since 2005. In July, the administration likewise eased the process of granting export licenses to Syria's aviation industry, another conciliatory gesture designed to encourage better behavior.

"Absent critical Syrian followthrough on Iraq, Washington may want to reevaluate its conciliatory approach. While the administration is unlikely to take dramatic steps anytime soon, it could deliver a powerful message to the Assad regime during the UN General Assembly in mid-September. Syrian officials have been advocating an Assad-Obama summit for months and are hoping to engineer a meet and greet on the sidelines of the New York meeting. Given the ongoing problems posed by Syria, Obama would be well advised to snub Assad in New York.

"Despite the best of intentions, the Obama administration approach has not yet convinced Damascus to change its ways. While it may be premature to throw in the towel and resume the Bush-era policy of isolation, if Syria's current behavior in Iraq persists it should provoke a policy review that adds some sticks to the arsenal of carrots already deployed against Damascus. The recent suicide bombings in Baghdad suggest an absence of mutual US-Syrian interests in Iraq. "Apparently, the Assad regime does not want a strong, democratic and stable Iraq. As the US starts to draw down its forces there, Washington's Syria policy should reflect this reality.

Monday, September 14, 2009

''The United States is like a giant boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate.''

"Americans are known to be forgetful about history. That's not always a bad thing. Certainly, it's better than living in the past. When Saddam had declared that the incorporation of Kuwait as Iraq's 19th province was ''a fact of history,'' I recall the Chief of Staff of the Omani Armed Forces saying that ''Until people stop talking about history around here, there will never be any peace.'' And few countries could have put the past behind them as quickly as the U.S. did with Germany and Japan after World War II.

"Forgetfulness has its price, however. As we mark the eighth anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we are in danger of becoming complacent once again. Perhaps that is because--thankfully--there have been no more attacks on American soil during those eight years. No one predicted that we would be so fortunate, and to this day we cannot fully explain why we have not been attacked again Our success in breaking up planned attacks, including through information obtained from captured terrorists, is certainly part of the explanation. "Although the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue--and we must be careful about premature declarations of victory--they have so far proven to be setbacks for the enemy. And improved domestic security has not only prevented attacks but also serves as a deterrent.

"But the enemy has certainly not given up. In the last eight years, there have been successful attacks on the U.K., Spain, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to name just a few. And this is an enemy with great patience and a long time horizon. It took more than eight years from the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993 to prepare the second, more devastating, one. "There is a grim joke about a member of the Taliban who meets an American who is bragging about his expensive Rolex: ''Yes,'' says the Talib, ''you have the watch but we have all the time.''

"Unfortunately, this struggle will be with us for a long time to come and it could re-emerge in more dangerous forms if we try to pretend that it's no longer serious. "Even if the terrorists are in retreat, extremist views are still gaining strength among large segments of the world's population. And the threat that terrorists might someday get their hands on weapons of mass destruction remains and could easily grow if nuclear proliferations continue. "A successful attack with biological or nuclear weapons could produce casualties that would dwarf those of Sept. 11. Beyond the death and destruction, such an attack could transform the way we live and lead us to hunker down into closed societies and closed economies.

"President Obama has some unique qualities that could help him lead the country in a new and possibly more demanding phase of this struggle, one that is likely to be waged as much in the realm of ideas as on the battlefield. He brings to the task his own personal qualities and eloquence and also represents in his person what can be achieved in societies where all citizens are treated truly as equals. The power of that idea is one of our most powerful tools for draining the swamp where extremists breed and find support.

"To be successful, however, President Obama needs to speak hard truths to the world and particularly to the world's dictators. He must not only defend the right of Muslim women in the West to cover their heads, as he did three times in his speech in Cairo, he must also--even more importantly--speak in defense of women's rights in those Arab and Muslim countries where both Muslim and non-Muslim women are forced to cover completely or not allowed to drive. And he must also speak hard truths to the American people, to remind them that there are still large challenges ahead and that those on the front lines need our full support.

"The American military and their families--along with law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community--continue to demonstrate incredible strength and resolve in defense of the country. They deserve in return to have the country's full support and gratitude.

"There is also much that can only be done from the civilian side. That includes supporting those brave individuals throughout the world who are standing up against extremism, including the reformers in Iran today. It means supporting the struggle for women's rights that those extremists would deny. "It means doing everything we can to take the Palestinian issue away from the extremists, at the same time that we must be clear in our support for Israel's security.

"The United States still has enormous strength, but only if we maintain the will to use it.

"Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Mohammedism the custodian of its two holy mosques, the world’s energy superpower and the de facto leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds — that is why our recognition is greatly prized by Little Satan. However, for all those same reasons, the kingdom holds itself to higher standards of justice and law.

"It must therefore refuse to engage Little Satan until she ends her illegal occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as well as Shabaa Farms in Lebanon.

"For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality."

This is significant - and brazenly hollow. After all, Little Satan split the Strip way back in 2005. Where were the Kingdom's Higher Standards then? What tactical and strategic designs did this ME powerhouse exude then?

HRH Turki goes on to point out how awesome Land For Peace was betwixt Little Satan and Pyramidland yet only after Little Satan repented for siezing Egyptian turf in a series of desperate counter attacks in response to a secret attack by several Arab Leaguers against a democratic member of UN and promised to return every inch of sweetly acquired real estate booty.

Listing Gaza along with West Bank and the petite Shee Bah Farms (Har Dov in Little Satan speak) is suspect.

Land first -- then Peace.

YAWN

That faux school idea is sooo played.

Look -- since Nazi time Deutschland and Imperial Nippon screamed "God! Please! Stop!" over a 100 borders have been moved, dreamed up and established - and they didn't satisfy everybody -- yet -- an agreed upon border is way more better than generations of blood shed over turf.

Basing more polices RE: Palestine around mythic narratives of Little Satan's hedonistic appropriations for the Arab World's problems is retarded and are based on incorrect conclusions. So far, the redux'd land for peace has not only totally failed to resolve the problem - it has made it worse.

"The US shifted its policy today, saying it is now willing to meet one on one with North Korea if that is helpful to bring Pyongyang back to the nuclear negotiations.

US envoy Stephen Bosworth got the green light from the other members of the 6-party talks, negotiations to rid Pyongyang of its nuclear program, during meetings in the region in recent days.

North Korea has extended an invitation for Bosworth to visit Pyongyang, but officials say it’s unclear where or when a meeting could take place.

“It's designed to convince North Korea to come back to the six- party process and to take affirmative steps towards denuclearization,” State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said of the decision to meet.

Speaking on background, a senior US official said: “Our assessment, after consulting with the other parties in the six-party process, is that if a bilateral discussion can be an effective mechanism to get North Korea to come back to the six-party process… so that we can remind them of what their obligations are and to push them to take affirmative steps… then that would be a potentially useful step.”

North Korea has recently said it will never return to the nuke talks… so is there an expectation now that they might?

wHoA!

h0t!

~hEy Y"all! DoN"t MiSs GsGf~!

Guaranteed to magically transform subscribers into superior intellectuals, worldly, pious, witty, cool, fun to be with, irresistable, au courant and all together with it. Amaze friends, confound enemies and revel in the envy and righteous respect of peers.